« Atlantic Review: Is the War on Hysteria now Transatlantic? | Main | Above The Law Gets Serious. »
November 26, 2010
The Blob: So how and when can we make arbitration work?
Is there a way to stop feeding the monster? It's clear that both globally and in the U.S., arbitration and "ADR" have defeated the goals of Faster, Cheaper, Better. See, e.g., ABA Journal (April 2010) "International Arbitration Loses Its Grip". Any ideas on how to fix it? We need a system that works for clients--we already know it "works" for outside law firms--in business-to-business disputes. Why not have contract clauses that, regardless of the amount at stake, stipulate to one (1) panelist and require a decision in six (6) months?
Arbitration: Did it get as bad as the disease?
Posted by JD Hull at November 26, 2010 11:59 PM
Comments
We do like real names--but Ambitious will do for now. We'll give you a pass on this comment as you seem like you've "been there"....
Thanks for your comment; a "clear and defined system" grabbed us.
What if all biz-to-biz mediation and arbitration was both (1) tried and (2) heard by third-party in-house neutrals? In other words, as a general rule, LEAVE OUTSIDE law firms OUT of it--since we have abused the ADR ethos. (And we have.)
An in-house rep (not necessarily a lawyer) would "try" the case from each side. Arbitrators and mediators would be from pools put together by people in a "like" industry--and also would be from in-house? "Learning time" would be eliminated along with outside firm churning.
Outside law firms could be used--but rarely and in special circumstances (i.e., drain on company time and resources relative to fees to outside firm).
Then couple the whole thing with accelerated CPR-type rules developed by industry last year?
http://www.cpradr.org/ClausesRules/GlobalArbitrationRules/tabid/422/Default.aspx
Posted by: Hull at June 29, 2010 01:02 AM